Machines Will Never Replace Men (Danger: Slippery Slope Ahead)

A couple of recent news stories and the responses they have generated got me thinking once again about the slippery slope fallacy, whereby an event is presented as the catalyst for a chain of other events, even though there is no evidence to support the thesis.

The first slippery slope relates to an accident between a Google self-driving Lexus which crossed into the opposite lane at a speed of two mph to avoid sandbags positioned around a storm drain that were blocking its path. Coming the opposite way was a bus traveling at around 15 mph, and whose driver decided not to give way. A minor collision ensued, which Google accepted responsibility for, and changes were duly made to the Lexus’ algorithms to prevent it assuming that all human drivers would always be courteous. It’s worth pointing out before we go any further, that unlike an accident caused by a human, the Google Lexus will not repeat its mistake, and could even trigger the need for developing additional technology, such as vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications.

Here’s the thing: the accident doesn't prove that self-driving cars are less safe than ones driven by humans, or that humans react better in such situations, and much less that the future of self-driving cars has just been thrown into doubt. To say that self-driving cars are not safe because they are not driven by humans is simply begging the question.

Second case: Daimler says it’s to replace some of the robots used at its Sindelfingen plant in Germany to build its multiple driving options C-class with humans because the task of reprogramming each robot is less efficient than simply assigning a human to carry out the job. This has led plenty of commentators to jump to mistaken conclusions, arguing that robots will never replace humans, and that businesses have finally woken up to reality and admitted they were wrong to use robots in the first place.

Needless to say, this is not what is really happening. Daimler’s decision is a temporary solution until it is able to simplify its programming algorithms to the point where reprogramming robots is quick and simple; perhaps so quick and simple that they can reprogram themselves. So let’s be clear here: in no way does this mean that humans will be returning to the production line, and neither is Daimler about to unplug its robots; to do so would put it out of business within a couple of years.

Instead, what Daimler is actually doing is looking into how better to enable robots and humans to work together by equipping robots with the skills to allow them to avoid accidents. Anybody arguing otherwise is talking out of the rear end of their Merc. If you want to see logic used properly, then read something about the ongoing process of removing humans from the production line over the last 100 years.

Sadly, arguments based on false logic are all too common, even in the world of business. The poor old human brain still struggles with complex arguments and will usually go for the easy option of the generalization or the cliché. The problem is that business isn’t simple, it’s very complicated. Quick solutions and jumping to conclusions are basically mental placebos that might make us feel better, but they don't make a problem go away. They’re the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing la la la, a practice that is bad enough among adults, but downright irresponsible in the corporate environment.

Teaching Innovation at IE Business School since 1990, and now, hacking education as Senior Advisor for Digital Transformation at IE University. BSc (Universidade de Santiago de Compostela), MBA (Instituto de Empresa) and Ph.D. in Management Information Systems (UCLA).